FBI chart Mafia meetings 1928 to 1957

[Villain]

What about Lucianos power? I mean he had the ear of Chicago and he also had many non-Italians close to him, so were these the main reasons for his alleged "fame" among the rest of the commission guys?

I think a great deal of Luciano's prestige might have been what he represented, just like Gotti represented a "new era" without any notices being sent out. There was a great deal of charisma and show of force. Remember, the bosses of NY at the time were Mangano, Bonanno, Gagliano and Profaci who all lead quiet, married family lives, contrast that with Luciano living in a hotel, fucking hookers, living the high life. The New York scene from the bottom level was likely composed of growing number of Sicilian and Italians who were encountering "the organization" in the US and their take on gangsterism might have been more in-line with Luciano then the conservative Mafia-homelife of the others. Valachi even stated Luciano "represented" the final breakdown of regional disputes with Sicilian him, Calabrian Costello and Neapolitan Genovese. The only other family at that time who had a non-Sicilian in the admin were the Gambinos in Anastasia.

But as it stands, he did NOT-
-Create the hierarchy
-Create the commission
-Form La Cosa Nostra (there is not a single member- Gentile, Bonanno to name two, who discuss the death of an "old organization" to make way for a new "Cosa Nostra.") It's not there, all these Families can be traced back 1,2 3 decades before 1931.
-Teach Sicilians not to be prejudiced against mainlanders and other groups.
-Have 60 bosses killed nationally.
-Breathe American Business pixie dust on its members.

Yeah i agree. It seems that both Luciano and Capone led the same type of life and didnt care much about tradition or conservative living. I think that Lansky is another good example in Lucianos chapter, or maybe even the Genovese fam in general.

[Angelo Santino]

What about Lucianos power? I mean he had the ear of Chicago and he also had many non-Italians close to him, so were these the main reasons for his alleged "fame" among the rest of the commission guys?

I think a great deal of Luciano's prestige might have been what he represented, just like Gotti represented a "new era" without any notices being sent out. There was a great deal of charisma and show of force. Remember, the bosses of NY at the time were Mangano, Bonanno, Gagliano and Profaci who all lead quiet, married family lives, contrast that with Luciano living in a hotel, fucking hookers, living the high life. The New York scene from the bottom level was likely composed of growing number of Sicilian and Italians who were encountering "the organization" in the US and their take on gangsterism might have been more in-line with Luciano then the conservative Mafia-homelife of the others. Valachi even stated Luciano "represented" the final breakdown of regional disputes with Sicilian him, Calabrian Costello and Neapolitan Genovese. The only other family at that time who had a non-Sicilian in the admin were the Gambinos in Anastasia.

But as it stands, he did NOT-
-Create the hierarchy
-Create the commission
-Form La Cosa Nostra (there is not a single member- Gentile, Bonanno to name two, who discuss the death of an "old organization" to make way for a new "Cosa Nostra.") It's not there, all these Families can be traced back 1,2 3 decades before 1931.
-Teach Sicilians not to be prejudiced against mainlanders and other groups.
-Have 60 bosses killed nationally.
-Breathe American Business pixie dust on its members.

Yeah i agree. It seems that both Luciano and Capone led the same type of life and didnt care much about tradition or conservative living. I think that Lansky is another good example in Lucianos chapter, or maybe even the Genovese fam in general.

Lanky is part of the Genovese story, it can't be told without him, but he's not the only one, by that point each Family had non-Italians 'with' them. I think with informant Valachi in the 1960's providing information that members had to be Italian and then laid out the structure that lead to people getting the idea that these were completely Italian entities and enterprises when that's not the case. Especially at the street level where everyone is mingling. But this was not new, there's examples of Italians and non working together in the 1890's, by 1910 and 1920 you see alot more of it as English was becoming more common.

That's why I keep going back to Organizational and Operational being different but vital things to be explored. We go by Organizational, we take Lansky's name off because he's not a member and he can't be. We go by Operational we put Lanksy's name on it near the top since he probably outweighed alot of members in the day-to-day operandi. Both need to be weighed and examined.

[Villain]

What about Lucianos power? I mean he had the ear of Chicago and he also had many non-Italians close to him, so were these the main reasons for his alleged "fame" among the rest of the commission guys?

I think a great deal of Luciano's prestige might have been what he represented, just like Gotti represented a "new era" without any notices being sent out. There was a great deal of charisma and show of force. Remember, the bosses of NY at the time were Mangano, Bonanno, Gagliano and Profaci who all lead quiet, married family lives, contrast that with Luciano living in a hotel, fucking hookers, living the high life. The New York scene from the bottom level was likely composed of growing number of Sicilian and Italians who were encountering "the organization" in the US and their take on gangsterism might have been more in-line with Luciano then the conservative Mafia-homelife of the others. Valachi even stated Luciano "represented" the final breakdown of regional disputes with Sicilian him, Calabrian Costello and Neapolitan Genovese. The only other family at that time who had a non-Sicilian in the admin were the Gambinos in Anastasia.

But as it stands, he did NOT-
-Create the hierarchy
-Create the commission
-Form La Cosa Nostra (there is not a single member- Gentile, Bonanno to name two, who discuss the death of an "old organization" to make way for a new "Cosa Nostra.") It's not there, all these Families can be traced back 1,2 3 decades before 1931.
-Teach Sicilians not to be prejudiced against mainlanders and other groups.
-Have 60 bosses killed nationally.
-Breathe American Business pixie dust on its members.

Yeah i agree. It seems that both Luciano and Capone led the same type of life and didnt care much about tradition or conservative living. I think that Lansky is another good example in Lucianos chapter, or maybe even the Genovese fam in general.

Lanky is part of the Genovese story, it can't be told without him, but he's not the only one, by that point each Family had non-Italians 'with' them. I think with informant Valachi in the 1960's providing information that members had to be Italian and then laid out the structure that lead to people getting the idea that these were completely Italian entities and enterprises when that's not the case. Especially at the street level where everyone is mingling. But this was not new, there's examples of Italians and non working together in the 1890's, by 1910 and 1920 you see alot more of it as English was becoming more common.

That's why I keep going back to Organizational and Operational being different but vital things to be explored. We go by Organizational, we take Lansky's name off because he's not a member and he can't be. We go by Operational we put Lanksy's name on it near the top since he probably outweighed alot of members in the day-to-day operandi. Both need to be weighed and examined.

Thats one nice explanation and thanks for the 100th time today

One last question before i go and place my kid to sleep....am i right or wrong when i use the term "new commission" regarding the 1931 period?

[Angelo Santino]

Yes. It was a new body used to replace the boss of bosses position that existed since at least the 1890's until 1931. Prior to that point it had been Boss of Bosses, a Grand Council (it's vague, but I suspect NY bosses composed it.) and then the General Assembly (national meeting of Bosses and/or their underlings). This system was likely established after 1905 when automobiles made travel more possible, we first hear of it in Morello's confiscated 1908 letters where he's discussing New Orleans and Chicago. In 1911, Clemente stated that before someone can join one group, consent needs to be reached for all four groups. I suspect this might have been the Grand Council but let's wait and see what B. says. He'll have something to add.

I think the BOB changed and depended on who helmed it. Bonanno claimed it was akin to a "capo consigliere" that influences other bosses on an informal basis, however Gentile contradicts him when he explained attending sitdowns in the 1920's while D'Aquila held the position. D'Aquila issued a death sentence on Morello and Gentile speaks of going around the country to try and get bosses to join "a commission" to appeal D'Aquila's decision.

So while the commission body was formed in 1931, it was built on the foundations of a already established national system that, as we can see there was a formal and orderly process to things since the 1900's.

[Villain]

Yes. It was a new body used to replace the boss of bosses position that existed since at least the 1890's until 1931. Prior to that point it had been Boss of Bosses, a Grand Council (it's vague, but I suspect NY bosses composed it.) and then the General Assembly (national meeting of Bosses and/or their underlings). This system was likely established after 1905 when automobiles made travel more possible, we first hear of it in Morello's confiscated 1908 letters where he's discussing New Orleans and Chicago. In 1911, Clemente stated that before someone can join one group, consent needs to be reached for all four groups. I suspect this might have been the Grand Council but let's wait and see what B. says. He'll have something to add.

I think the BOB changed and depended on who helmed it. Bonanno claimed it was akin to a "capo consigliere" that influences other bosses on an informal basis, however Gentile contradicts him when he explained attending sitdowns in the 1920's while D'Aquila held the position. D'Aquila issued a death sentence on Morello and Gentile speaks of going around the country to try and get bosses to join "a commission" to appeal D'Aquila's decision.

So while the commission body was formed in 1931, it was built on the foundations of a already established national system that, as we can see there was a formal and orderly process to things since the 1900's.

Cheers

[B.]

Something interesting, too, is Joe Bonanno said the boss of bosses was actually a "capo consigliere", meaning he was supposed to be more of a "chief advisor" or "head counselor", as Bonanno translates it himself and notes that both Salvatore D'Aquila and Gaspare Messina held this position before Masseria and Maranzano. Note that Gentile however uses the term "Capo dei Capi", as is more common.

I don't think Bonanno pulled "capo consigliere" out of his ass, as I saw another source use similar language (can't find it now), and the mafia tends to at least go through the motions of democracy even if it doesn't play out that way on an operational level. For example, the boss is a "rappresentante", meaning a representative of the membership, and there appears to be a "consiglio" (council of elders) within some families and a "grand consiglio" designated by the National Assembly.

As Gentile explains, the Assembly would also appoint "commissions" for specific purposes, so in addition to Troia's proposed Commission before Maranzano became "capo dei capi", "commissions" were used for specific purposes in the early mafia though they weren't permanent. The consigliere within a given family was also supposed to be elected as an independent mediator who could represent the membership outside of the boss's sphere of influence (a perfect example is Joe Rugnetta/Philly, and another interesting case is Magaddino, who said he didn't allow a consigliere in his family as it would be an independent power that challenged the authority of the boss).

So the mafia traditionally put measures in place to limit not only the power of the "capofamiglia / rappresentante", but even the "capo dei capi" was nit supposed to be all-powerful. No doubt it was abused and in many cases was only given lip service, but there is also evidence that the mafia did try to prevent tyranny though it wasn't always sucessful.

[Angelo Santino]

Something interesting, too, is Joe Bonanno said the boss of bosses was actually a "capo consigliere", meaning he was supposed to be more of a "chief advisor" or "head counselor", as Bonanno translates it himself and notes that both Salvatore D'Aquila and Gaspare Messina held this position before Masseria and Maranzano. Note that Gentile however uses the term "Capo dei Capi", as is more common.

I don't think Bonanno pulled "capo consigliere" out of his ass, as I saw another source use similar language (can't find it now), and the mafia tends to at least go through the motions of democracy even if it doesn't play out that way on an operational level. For example, the boss is a "rappresentante", meaning a representative of the membership, and there appears to be a "consiglio" (council of elders) within some families and a "grand consiglio" designated by the National Assembly.

As Gentile explains, the Assembly would also appoint "commissions" for specific purposes, so in addition to Troia's proposed Commission before Maranzano became "capo dei capi", "commissions" were used for specific purposes in the early mafia though they weren't permanent. The consigliere within a given family was also supposed to be elected as an independent mediator who could represent the membership outside of the boss's sphere of influence (a perfect example is Joe Rugnetta/Philly, and another interesting case is Magaddino, who said he didn't allow a consigliere in his family as it would be an independent power that challenged the authority of the boss).

So the mafia traditionally put measures in place to limit not only the power of the "capofamiglia / rappresentante", but even the "capo dei capi" was nit supposed to be all-powerful. No doubt it was abused and in many cases was only given lip service, but there is also evidence that the mafia did try to prevent tyranny though it wasn't always sucessful.

Reviewing confiscated Morello letters between him and the leaders of Chicago and New Orleans. He appeared to be a pragmatist. He gave permission for New Orleans to reorganize and told Chicago that the Morellos cannot vouch for a fellow Corleonese member because no one knew him... D'Aquila on the other hand, we only have Gentile's word and he was described as being very authoritative but still adhered to a checks and balances protocol... Masseria then took it further by eliminating bosses around the country and replacing them with his loyalists. There's evidence of D'Aquila doing it but it seems he spaced things out whereas Masseria went over 5+ families in the span of 2 years. Both Gentile and Bonanno, who were on opposite sides of the war refer to Masseria as a dictator. And then lastly was Maranzano who Bonanno noted was good at war but not the daily headaches of leadership.

I think the position was like every other position in that it largely depended on who occupied it.

[B.]

Something interesting, too, is Joe Bonanno said the boss of bosses was actually a "capo consigliere", meaning he was supposed to be more of a "chief advisor" or "head counselor", as Bonanno translates it himself and notes that both Salvatore D'Aquila and Gaspare Messina held this position before Masseria and Maranzano. Note that Gentile however uses the term "Capo dei Capi", as is more common.

I don't think Bonanno pulled "capo consigliere" out of his ass, as I saw another source use similar language (can't find it now), and the mafia tends to at least go through the motions of democracy even if it doesn't play out that way on an operational level. For example, the boss is a "rappresentante", meaning a representative of the membership, and there appears to be a "consiglio" (council of elders) within some families and a "grand consiglio" designated by the National Assembly.

As Gentile explains, the Assembly would also appoint "commissions" for specific purposes, so in addition to Troia's proposed Commission before Maranzano became "capo dei capi", "commissions" were used for specific purposes in the early mafia though they weren't permanent. The consigliere within a given family was also supposed to be elected as an independent mediator who could represent the membership outside of the boss's sphere of influence (a perfect example is Joe Rugnetta/Philly, and another interesting case is Magaddino, who said he didn't allow a consigliere in his family as it would be an independent power that challenged the authority of the boss).

So the mafia traditionally put measures in place to limit not only the power of the "capofamiglia / rappresentante", but even the "capo dei capi" was nit supposed to be all-powerful. No doubt it was abused and in many cases was only given lip service, but there is also evidence that the mafia did try to prevent tyranny though it wasn't always sucessful.

Reviewing confiscated Morello letters between him and the leaders of Chicago and New Orleans. He appeared to be a pragmatist. He gave permission for New Orleans to reorganize and told Chicago that the Morellos cannot vouch for a fellow Corleonese member because no one knew him... D'Aquila on the other hand, we only have Gentile's word and he was described as being very authoritative but still adhered to a checks and balances protocol... Masseria then took it further by eliminating bosses around the country and replacing them with his loyalists. There's evidence of D'Aquila doing it but it seems he spaced things out whereas Masseria went over 5+ families in the span of 2 years. Both Gentile and Bonanno, who were on opposite sides of the war refer to Masseria as a dictator. And then lastly was Maranzano who Bonanno noted was good at war but not the daily headaches of leadership.

I think the position was like every other position in that it largely depended on who occupied it.

Great points and the Morello letters are very telling. My take is the boss of bosses capitalized on local situations and it wasn't as black and white as "the capo dei capi killed the old boss and installed a new one", nor are the local accounts correct that make boss murders out to be purely local affairs. I think most of these issues were a blend of national and local interests meeting in the middle, especially since the local figures would have needed national support to officially take over, while the capo dei capi and other national influencers would have needed localized support to carry out their plans.

Also, I don't feel like editing, but I might have meant Governo Centrale when I said National Assembly above. I believe the Governo Centrale requested National Assemblies, so on a functional level I'm talking about the same thing. And with that in mind, doesn't the Governo Centrale come across like a proto-Commission? Seems to have included many more bosses from around the country, though the info is very thin yet murky so hard to say. Point being, large-scale mafia politics were being handled by a body of people throughout its entire history even though there are examples of tyranny and backroom manipulation via the capo dei capi and other powerful figures.

[scagghiuni]

Something interesting, too, is Joe Bonanno said the boss of bosses was actually a "capo consigliere", meaning he was supposed to be more of a "chief advisor" or "head counselor", as Bonanno translates it himself and notes that both Salvatore D'Aquila and Gaspare Messina held this position before Masseria and Maranzano. Note that Gentile however uses the term "Capo dei Capi", as is more common.

i think in sicily was the same, despite sangiorgi in his report said there was a boss of bosses 'capo supremo'

[Angelo Santino]

Something interesting, too, is Joe Bonanno said the boss of bosses was actually a "capo consigliere", meaning he was supposed to be more of a "chief advisor" or "head counselor", as Bonanno translates it himself and notes that both Salvatore D'Aquila and Gaspare Messina held this position before Masseria and Maranzano. Note that Gentile however uses the term "Capo dei Capi", as is more common.

I don't think Bonanno pulled "capo consigliere" out of his ass, as I saw another source use similar language (can't find it now), and the mafia tends to at least go through the motions of democracy even if it doesn't play out that way on an operational level. For example, the boss is a "rappresentante", meaning a representative of the membership, and there appears to be a "consiglio" (council of elders) within some families and a "grand consiglio" designated by the National Assembly.

As Gentile explains, the Assembly would also appoint "commissions" for specific purposes, so in addition to Troia's proposed Commission before Maranzano became "capo dei capi", "commissions" were used for specific purposes in the early mafia though they weren't permanent. The consigliere within a given family was also supposed to be elected as an independent mediator who could represent the membership outside of the boss's sphere of influence (a perfect example is Joe Rugnetta/Philly, and another interesting case is Magaddino, who said he didn't allow a consigliere in his family as it would be an independent power that challenged the authority of the boss).

So the mafia traditionally put measures in place to limit not only the power of the "capofamiglia / rappresentante", but even the "capo dei capi" was nit supposed to be all-powerful. No doubt it was abused and in many cases was only given lip service, but there is also evidence that the mafia did try to prevent tyranny though it wasn't always sucessful.

Reviewing confiscated Morello letters between him and the leaders of Chicago and New Orleans. He appeared to be a pragmatist. He gave permission for New Orleans to reorganize and told Chicago that the Morellos cannot vouch for a fellow Corleonese member because no one knew him... D'Aquila on the other hand, we only have Gentile's word and he was described as being very authoritative but still adhered to a checks and balances protocol... Masseria then took it further by eliminating bosses around the country and replacing them with his loyalists. There's evidence of D'Aquila doing it but it seems he spaced things out whereas Masseria went over 5+ families in the span of 2 years. Both Gentile and Bonanno, who were on opposite sides of the war refer to Masseria as a dictator. And then lastly was Maranzano who Bonanno noted was good at war but not the daily headaches of leadership.

I think the position was like every other position in that it largely depended on who occupied it.

Great points and the Morello letters are very telling. My take is the boss of bosses capitalized on local situations and it wasn't as black and white as "the capo dei capi killed the old boss and installed a new one", nor are the local accounts correct that make boss murders out to be purely local affairs. I think most of these issues were a blend of national and local interests meeting in the middle, especially since the local figures would have needed national support to officially take over, while the capo dei capi and other national influencers would have needed localized support to carry out their plans.

Also, I don't feel like editing, but I might have meant Governo Centrale when I said National Assembly above. I believe the Governo Centrale requested National Assemblies, so on a functional level I'm talking about the same thing. And with that in mind, doesn't the Governo Centrale come across like a proto-Commission? Seems to have included many more bosses from around the country, though the info is very thin yet murky so hard to say. Point being, large-scale mafia politics were being handled by a body of people throughout its entire history even though there are examples of tyranny and backroom manipulation via the capo dei capi and other powerful figures.

I think it was a blend of local and national politics. It wasn't a case of Masseria going in and disrupting perfectly happy and well adjusted members but likely lending support to people in other cities and taking advantage of situations where he could, as D'Aquila did before him just more subtly over a longer span. Remember in 1913 D'Aquila had a mini-dispute with Schiro, Mineo and Lo Monte and 6 months later Lo Monte is killed and no one suspected D'Aquila as per both Clemente and Gentile. Seems to an outsider like me that he would have been the first guy you suspected. What I think happened is there was a sitdown and everyone made peace on the surface, and enough believed it to not suspect D'Aquila's involvement just 6 months later.. Masseria on the other hand was BOB all of 2 years (Post Oct 1928 until Dec 1930) and had his fingerprints on Lucchese, Gambino, Mineo, Detroit, Chicago with attempts at the Bonannos.

Governo Centrale? I remember that and I also remember not thinking much about it, that it was either an alias for the grand consiglio or an informal term for the top bosses in NY. As we've already discussed, certain positions and formal names and then a host of regional slang names. But I'm not throwing water on it and you may be onto something. As I'm considering it for the first time, the narrative would be- BOB, Central Government, Grand Council and General Assembly? Seems like too many layers to me but when it comes to finding the dope you're like a drug sniffing dog with a hard on for justice. You may be on something.

[Angelo Santino]

Something interesting, too, is Joe Bonanno said the boss of bosses was actually a "capo consigliere", meaning he was supposed to be more of a "chief advisor" or "head counselor", as Bonanno translates it himself and notes that both Salvatore D'Aquila and Gaspare Messina held this position before Masseria and Maranzano. Note that Gentile however uses the term "Capo dei Capi", as is more common.

I don't think Bonanno pulled "capo consigliere" out of his ass, as I saw another source use similar language (can't find it now), and the mafia tends to at least go through the motions of democracy even if it doesn't play out that way on an operational level. For example, the boss is a "rappresentante", meaning a representative of the membership, and there appears to be a "consiglio" (council of elders) within some families and a "grand consiglio" designated by the National Assembly.

As Gentile explains, the Assembly would also appoint "commissions" for specific purposes, so in addition to Troia's proposed Commission before Maranzano became "capo dei capi", "commissions" were used for specific purposes in the early mafia though they weren't permanent. The consigliere within a given family was also supposed to be elected as an independent mediator who could represent the membership outside of the boss's sphere of influence (a perfect example is Joe Rugnetta/Philly, and another interesting case is Magaddino, who said he didn't allow a consigliere in his family as it would be an independent power that challenged the authority of the boss).

So the mafia traditionally put measures in place to limit not only the power of the "capofamiglia / rappresentante", but even the "capo dei capi" was nit supposed to be all-powerful. No doubt it was abused and in many cases was only given lip service, but there is also evidence that the mafia did try to prevent tyranny though it wasn't always sucessful.

Reviewing confiscated Morello letters between him and the leaders of Chicago and New Orleans. He appeared to be a pragmatist. He gave permission for New Orleans to reorganize and told Chicago that the Morellos cannot vouch for a fellow Corleonese member because no one knew him... D'Aquila on the other hand, we only have Gentile's word and he was described as being very authoritative but still adhered to a checks and balances protocol... Masseria then took it further by eliminating bosses around the country and replacing them with his loyalists. There's evidence of D'Aquila doing it but it seems he spaced things out whereas Masseria went over 5+ families in the span of 2 years. Both Gentile and Bonanno, who were on opposite sides of the war refer to Masseria as a dictator. And then lastly was Maranzano who Bonanno noted was good at war but not the daily headaches of leadership.

I think the position was like every other position in that it largely depended on who occupied it.

Great points and the Morello letters are very telling. My take is the boss of bosses capitalized on local situations and it wasn't as black and white as "the capo dei capi killed the old boss and installed a new one", nor are the local accounts correct that make boss murders out to be purely local affairs. I think most of these issues were a blend of national and local interests meeting in the middle, especially since the local figures would have needed national support to officially take over, while the capo dei capi and other national influencers would have needed localized support to carry out their plans.

Also, I don't feel like editing, but I might have meant Governo Centrale when I said National Assembly above. I believe the Governo Centrale requested National Assemblies, so on a functional level I'm talking about the same thing. And with that in mind, doesn't the Governo Centrale come across like a proto-Commission? Seems to have included many more bosses from around the country, though the info is very thin yet murky so hard to say. Point being, large-scale mafia politics were being handled by a body of people throughout its entire history even though there are examples of tyranny and backroom manipulation via the capo dei capi and other powerful figures.

I think it was a blend of local and national politics. It wasn't a case of Masseria going in and disrupting perfectly happy and well adjusted members but likely lending support to people in other cities and taking advantage of situations where he could, as D'Aquila did before him just more subtly over a longer span. Remember in 1913 D'Aquila had a mini-dispute with Schiro, Mineo and Lo Monte and 6 months later Lo Monte is killed and no one suspected D'Aquila as per both Clemente and Gentile. Seems to an outsider like me that he would have been the first guy you suspected. What I think happened is there was a sitdown and everyone made peace on the surface, and enough believed it to not suspect D'Aquila's involvement just 6 months later.. Masseria on the other hand was BOB all of 2 years (Post Oct 1928 until Dec 1930) and had his fingerprints on Lucchese, Gambino, Mineo, Detroit, Chicago with attempts at the Bonannos.

Governo Centrale? I remember that and I also remember not thinking much about it, that it was either an alias for the grand consiglio or an informal term for the top bosses in NY. As we've already discussed, certain positions and formal names and then a host of regional slang names. But I'm not throwing water on it and you may be onto something. As I'm considering it for the first time, the narrative would be- BOB, Central Government, Grand Council and General Assembly? Seems like too many layers to me but when it comes to finding the dope you're like a drug sniffing dog with a hard on for justice. You may be on something.

--------

Separate topic- you've seen an example of what I'm trying to do with a Bonanno Family relations "chart," it's impossible for me to keep it to NYC so I'll be expanding on it to include Castellammarese-linked people in other cities like Detroit, Buffalo and Pittston. it's a work in progress. If you have any names nationally, such as the west coast, can you just make a list of names/cities and how they're connected and get back to me. No Rush. Right now I'm dealing mainly with NY and Detroit right now. But the Lanzas and Sciortinos would be two names? You've looked into that more than me.

[B.]

I think it was a blend of local and national politics. It wasn't a case of Masseria going in and disrupting perfectly happy and well adjusted members but likely lending support to people in other cities and taking advantage of situations where he could, as D'Aquila did before him just more subtly over a longer span. Remember in 1913 D'Aquila had a mini-dispute with Schiro, Mineo and Lo Monte and 6 months later Lo Monte is killed and no one suspected D'Aquila as per both Clemente and Gentile. Seems to an outsider like me that he would have been the first guy you suspected. What I think happened is there was a sitdown and everyone made peace on the surface, and enough believed it to not suspect D'Aquila's involvement just 6 months later.. Masseria on the other hand was BOB all of 2 years (Post Oct 1928 until Dec 1930) and had his fingerprints on Lucchese, Gambino, Mineo, Detroit, Chicago with attempts at the Bonannos.

Governo Centrale? I remember that and I also remember not thinking much about it, that it was either an alias for the grand consiglio or an informal term for the top bosses in NY. As we've already discussed, certain positions and formal names and then a host of regional slang names. But I'm not throwing water on it and you may be onto something. As I'm considering it for the first time, the narrative would be- BOB, Central Government, Grand Council and General Assembly? Seems like too many layers to me but when it comes to finding the dope you're like a drug sniffing dog with a hard on for justice. You may be on something.

Haha, you think too highly of me. My hard-on is for the drugs, not justice.

Gentile refers to a pre-1930 "Governo Centrale" in NYC in FBI reports and his book (not sure if they are sourced from different interviews). A "Governo Centrale" meeting was called, for example, by Masseria when he decided to induct Al Capone and authorize him to take out the Chicago leadership. So whether it was a synonym for a National/General Assembly (he also uses, translated, "Legislative Assembly" and "Regional Assembly", so that adds more terms to it) isn't clear, but it shows that the capo dei capi didn't just call secret one-on-one meetings to handle important political decisions, but at the very least wanted witnesses and input from other leaders (even if they were secretly in pre-established agreement with Masseria, which is likely, and which we have seen in individual family's boss elections).

Gentile also refers to the "Consiglio Supremo" and the "Consiglio Grande", which must be synonymous, but these appear to be different from his reference to a family-specific "consiglio" in the San Francisco family and possibly the Pittsburgh family, and as we've discussed plenty of times, is probably the same as the "council" / "seggia" / "chair" used within various smaller US families.

Whether the "Consiglio Supremo/Grande" are the same as the "Governo Centrale" is another question, but at the very least we can see that there were councils and commission-like meetings in the pre-1931 mafia. If I were giving an educated guess, I'd say the biggest difference with the post-1931 "Commissione" is that it involved a more limited group of bosses who were elected to five year terms and the "chairman" was not a capo dei capi but more of a secretary, as Joe Bonanno described the position. It wasn't a revolutionary idea proposed by Big Business Syndicate CEO Charlie Lucky, but a modified version of something they were already doing -- no doubt it was much more stable.

Something interesting, too, is Joe Bonanno said the boss of bosses was actually a "capo consigliere", meaning he was supposed to be more of a "chief advisor" or "head counselor", as Bonanno translates it himself and notes that both Salvatore D'Aquila and Gaspare Messina held this position before Masseria and Maranzano. Note that Gentile however uses the term "Capo dei Capi", as is more common.

i think in sicily was the same, despite sangiorgi in his report said there was a boss of bosses 'capo supremo'

Thanks. I could have sworn I saw something similar from one of the early Sicilian sources, either Allegra or the Sangiorgi report, where I saw something similar to "capo consigliere" used though it may have been "capo supremo". It stood out because it implied the capo dei capi was more of a "consigliere" or mediator/advisor, so I'm not sure it was "capo supremo" but I'd have to dig back into some reading. It wasn't one of the later pentiti I don't think, but an earlier source.

Giuffre did describe Greco as the "capo dei capi" in the 1980s, so they definitely used that term by that time. We know, though, that technically this was the capoprovincia of Palermo, who became defacto capo dei capi, not an official title.

[Angelo Santino]

I honestly do not know.

1 We know there was a boss of bosses
2 We know General Assemblies were composed of national Bosses and their aides.
3 Family Consiglie appeared to be a very common early phenomenon.

Gran Consiglio and anything else we're less clear on. We've heard reference to it but little beyond who was on it or what its duty entailed. We know that the NY Families met infrequently and names had to be passed around before someone could become a member. Was this the Gran Consiglio (NY essentially?). That was my guess/conclusion but you're looking into this so question everything including my own conclusions. I've been wrong and will be proven wrong again.

The biggest takeaway is that a national mafia cohesion with protocol and bureaucracy existed before 1931 and the Commission. It wasn't a bunch of unorganized Ruffians before the non-college educated Luciano showed these greaseballs how to be American. There's Luciano the man and Luciano the legend. But digging deeper, we see a national cohesion as early as 1908, formal, organized and bureaucratic. (The mafia borrowed from Italian government since at least the 1870's (but for those that believe 1820 the Italian government structure existed back then, I've posted linked to it; we really need to stop believing that 1931 was a mafia renaissance. Organizationally, the only change was BOB to Commission, significant but big fucking whoop. In that Light, Luciano did SHIT. There I said.... Now operationally, symbolically, Luciano was probably a shooting star: a non-traditional Sicilian with a Calabrian and Neapolitan in the admin, for NY Italian criminals having to work their way up into the Bonannos or Colombos probably would have admired Luciano's non-traditional family... So it goes back to organizational and operandi.

Give me some time and I'll type up Morello's letters about NY and Chicago so everyone can have a look and argue the takeaways. I'll post my own observations and takeaways. Be curious to see what everyone else observes/takesaway for national Mafia relations circa 1900's.

[cavita]

I honestly do not know.

1 We know there was a boss of bosses
2 We know General Assemblies were composed of national Bosses and their aides.
3 Family Consiglie appeared to be a very common early phenomenon.

Gran Consiglio and anything else we're less clear on. We've heard reference to it but little beyond who was on it or what its duty entailed. We know that the NY Families met infrequently and names had to be passed around before someone could become a member. Was this the Gran Consiglio (NY essentially?). That was my guess/conclusion but you're looking into this so question everything including my own conclusions. I've been wrong and will be proven wrong again.

The biggest takeaway is that a national mafia cohesion with protocol and bureaucracy existed before 1931 and the Commission. It wasn't a bunch of unorganized Ruffians before the non-college educated Luciano showed these greaseballs how to be American. There's Luciano the man and Luciano the legend. But digging deeper, we see a national cohesion as early as 1908.

Give me some time and I'll type up Morello's letters about NY and Chicago so everyone can have a look and argue the takeaways. I'll post my own observations and takeaways. Be curious to see what everyone else observes/takesaway for national Mafia relations circa 1900's.

I would very much appreciate seeing Morello's letters when you get the time. By the way, I love the Cyrus avatar!

[Angelo Santino]

I just need to find them. Antiliar has my HD it's on there, but maybe I have them on another disk.